tv [untitled] September 19, 2013 5:30am-6:01am PDT
board, questions or comment. members of the public care to address on this issue? >> seeing none. okay, members of the board. it should deal with the amendment first. amendments that mr. boomer read to us and whereas and the resolve clause. is there a motion to accept the on the amendment? >> i would move to approve the amendments. >> okay, is there a second. >> second. >> all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> on the amended resolution before us. >> move to proo approve. >> second. >> all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> thank you very much. >> director, mr. chairman, i believe you wanted me to call item 13 and 14 together. >> that would be great. >> item 13 authorizing the director to execute an
agreement with ips group for the procurement of single space parking meter and support services for an amount not to exceed $53 million for a term of 5 years with an option to extend the contract for up to two dishls years: item 14. authorizing the director to execute an agreement with mackay meters for the procurement of multi-space pay stations and support services for an amount not to exceed $8 million and for a term of five 5 years with the option to extend the contract for up to two additional years. >> the current meters aren't for the users. they are not optimal. batteries die down and spare parts are hard to go to. -- get. we have been working on this procurement. as mi boomer
mentioned we are looking at a 5-year term with option to extend up to two 2 years to replace 5,000 single space meters in the city. the not to exceed amount is $54 million for the seven 7 years for the single space and for the multi-space meters. the additional to the infrastructure we are going to be accessing support services including credit card payments on all the meters and supporting the warrants. the single space meters does require board of supervisors approval. the timeline of the new meters we'll be starting to receive these in 2014 and expect the meters where the older meters are and move to the central part of the city. i was informed very much by the pilots that we ran in terms of
the meter capabilities. so while no meter is as perfect we would like it to be, we are moving in a long way. >> i would like to thank elaine who worked on this project. we are looking for your approval and author -- to answer any questions that you might have. >> you say they are going in the outer area of the city? >> they are to start in the special event of the areas and the sf areas. >> i would say we have something about the faith community who have been here assuming we keep on with the sunday parking. i voted for that last year. i thought these meters were going to be in place, the better meters where you use a credit card and cell
phones. >> all meters are usable via pay by phone. the phone is there. not all of them are credit card. we can certainly consider that as well. >> the part that makes it so easy to do with a credit card. i would appreciate that. before we get ready to do that have some kind of report back on how feasible how that might be. thank you very much. we have members of the public? >> yes. we have two people who have submitted speaker cards. >> good afternoon. i'm here on behalf of dwayne johnson, speaking in favor of the group. they contracted us to handle the community outreach side of it which we are happy to do for them and excited about the project. so we ask that you
pass this vote for us. thank you for your time. >> next speaker. >> chad randall. >> good afternoon, chairman nolan, members of the board. thanks for the at some point to speak today. i'm the chief operating officer, we are a parking technology company based here in california san diego. we also manufacture these products. today i'm joined by pretty much all the executives management of ips. we are the current provider of the credit card single meters today. certainly the industry is learning a lot from that project as are we as a vendor of technology. we are equally
excited to be a part of taking that technology throughout the city. and with the team here, myself included, stand firmly committed to you, the city and this project and to be a very long-term project for the weeks and months ahead. thank you for the opportunity. >> i have a question for you, sir. sometimes it's very difficult to read the message on the meter. is there something going on to improve this? >> the next generation of technology is incorporating a larger display on it. it's feedback we took from you. >> glad to hear that. >> what i ran into wasn't the display, was it the restrictions. you couldn't read them because it was part of the
body of the meter. i couldn't find it on. i had to take my cellphone to shine on it to see the restrictions. >> that too was one of the pieces of feedback. i think what we learned as a technology provider from this project, there is a lot of information that we want to be able to display to the public and it needs to be easy to read and while older technology has some of these limitations, this technology has more easily readable and so we can convey those message and that was some of the specific feedback that staff could provide to us as part of that project. >> thank you very much. >> any members of the public? >> is there a motion on this on 13 and 14 taken together. >> move. second. >> all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> thank you very much.
>> item 15. >> amending the advertising policy to add findings to support the policy and clarify it's purpose and to update a clarify other language related to the sfmta's advertising standards. you have 1 person wishing to speak on this matter. >> i just wanted to acknowledge that i think i previously indicated to you that we would be bringing this back later either towards the end of this year and early next year. the reason we are bringing it back sooner is because the bus contract expires this year and we would like to have a new policy before we issue a request for proposals for the success or contract to that contract. so we are bringing this a little sooner that i had anticipated. i hope the report is self explanatory. we do have folks here to answer any questions you might have.
>> thank you. members of the public? >> mohammed shake. >> good afternoon. my name is mohammed shack, americans for palestine and regarding advertisement policy. you voted to remove advertisement to remove any advertisement that is offensive. our organization has been working over the last year to address advertisement on the munis buses that have ochd offended. however in lines with the free speech and the
best feerts parties to do with hateful speech. we help communities forums which some of you attended. we encourage dialogue. we did not advocate setting down speech. we urge as required by the u.s. constitution that you stand by the law and by the people of san francisco to stand with us on the right side of the law and this policy. today without notice or dialogue you have adopted a standard and sends a mental that the government will decide what speech is suitable for city san franciscans to debate. this will cause lawsuits that you will likely lose. we have explained this
and i have copies of that letter available to me. this is a policy for the people of san francisco. we are a diverse community and we accept and celebrate opportunities to engage in dealing. munis has created a unique public forum that has shut out in many other spaces that are exposed to daylight. we in no way subject people to speech or ridicule. what do those terms mean? thank you. >> anyone else care to address the board on this one? >> seeing none. this is the topic for discussion in closed session. is that correct. the board has one more item. after this we will hear that and we'll go into closed session and the board will do more consideration on that and we'll come back and vote on it. >> item 16, amend the
transportation code sections 1102 #shgs 103 and 1107 to implement dispatch performance standards and to adopt a minimum requirement for dispatch equipment and for the transfer of dispatch service permit. >> i hope the staff report was fairly clear but maybe she can highlight what we are asking you to approve and why and then we look forward to hearing public comment. >> chris ha shi for taxi services. we have 30 different color scheme permits more or less. we have 10 dispatch service permits which are different from a color scheme permit. when you see a taxi of a particular color, that is a color scheme permit. when you call a phone number, that is a dispatch service permit. i put up a chart here of our current existing dispatch service permit holders so that you would have some point of
reference. we currently have, there is the 10 current dispatch service permit holders that also hold color scheme permits and the average number of medallions in column b associated with the color scheme. the average calls per month of medallion reached by one of those dispatch services. the successful picks up of per medallion in column d and the current number affiliated of medallions i will get back to that later. the intent of these dispatch service standards is to make sure that each dispatch service permit holder first of all has enough tax easy to be able to respond to request for service. if you call a phone number and ask for a taxi, the person, the dispatch service that answers that call should have an adequate supply of tax easy in order to respond to all of the cars they receive.
that's why these dispatch service standards call for a minimum number of medallions for dispatched service. second, the standards require the dispatch service permit holders to actually advertise themselves. that's why we look to the number of calls received by each dispatch permit. if you have a phone number that is not advertised, maybe you receive only three calls a day for service and you respond to all three of those successfully but it doesn't mean that you are adequately servicing the pub. you are receiving hundreds of calls per medallions per month. third, the proposed standard would give such dispatch service holder the stake to which is successful that does not currently exist. i think this is the most important part
of this that to ensure that the calls received result in somebody getting into a taxi. that is the number of pick ups per day per medallion parameter that we want to put around these standards. then this legislation would also require that each dispatch service permit holder maintain certain minimum dispatch equipment. there is only two dispatch service permit holders that doesn't already comply with pretty basic electronic dispatching systems and finally as we review the dispatch service sections of our transportation code, we realize that there is no clarity or specificity around the transfer ability of the service and because we get the request to transfer these permits, we want to make sure they are clear and uniform with the color scheme trfr ability that we have in
another section. the effect of this would be to remove dispatch service permits from service if they are not performing a dispatch function. you will see there is legislation to give these performers to bring their levels up. the ultimate standard would be until 2015. this is a dispatch service responsiveness to the public and we want to buy reducing passenger frustration related to calling ineffective dispatch service and improve the service in order to compete with other forms of transportation and i would also want to let you know that these numbers will include e hail dispatch request. we are not just talking about phone
calls for service, we are talking about service through an electronic hail. the point here at the end of the day is that a person who wants a taxi to respond to their particular location should be able to have some reasonable assurance of this success of that request. >> thank you. >> members have questions. now we'll hear from mbs of the public. >> mr. toronto? >> hi. good afternoon. sorry we are missing two more directors to hear this issue. remember this is related to passengers service. this is not related to who makes more money or dispatch. this is about meeting the customer and passenger demands. i want to point out to
you, i would like to get a copy of that. it was great that you showed that. you know the royal dispatch had better performance than the checker. you have to check that. it's not rule about how many tax easy. if there is a rule about few tax easy. it can't affect performance unless you have drivers that are committed to taking care of the calls. also there is associated problems about this. dispatch was used to also determine how many of the specialized medallions you got. there were some -- i would like to say, i would like to challenge the way this was done. the person who handled this gave medallions to some people who have very few cabs but were rewarded even though performance was not very well done. there is royal citywide dispatch, is a dispatch company. there is some
confusion about it. most of the calls get transfers to flywheel which in closing, i want to say, flywheel is fantastic. the drivers get the text message about the payments. i want to go back and say that you need to rev it the issue about having one app for the whole industry that everybody uses so that everybody is on board. so the technology that people don't have smartphones can also somehow use it because the mobile helps. i have gotten a number of calls. it's very very good. i appreciate it that you revisit this issue as part of this process. >> peter jacob. >> good afternoon. i have some serious concerns about this proep. in general i think it's okay. but my first and biggest concern is that it lumps
together a bus service with the other companies affiliated with the dispatch service. we have five other companies that are beneath us, if they want to accept more medallions under their companies, we can't say no. we wouldn't want to say no. that would put a lot of pressure on our dispatch service to produce additional calls which we may not have. we are taking on the responsibilities and punishment for not following these standards but we don't have the pift or control over how many cars we have on our company. i don't think anybody wants that. also i believe the numbers are too high. i know they are gradually introduced. but at the end, we are going to have to have a lot more calls and that's a time when calls over all are coming down, not going
up with competition from everything else. these calls are reducing, not increase. weithorn -- with competition is great, we don't have enough business to transact. i think the numbers should be revisited after the first benchmark and i think we need to be careful about creating oligopoly -- in our district. that these are really just for show. we don't want to create a situation where only the top two or they dispatch companies can survive. thank you. >> jacob mazel.
>> good afternoon, members of the board. jacob mazel. i have a 3-dimensional wheel on this matter as a manager and taxi driver. this is 2013. the e is going to be a last cause and even though i agree that it should be in case in quality, we look eight -- at it differently, i see no proposed amendment or policy anywhere in the country or the world. there is a reason why apps are successful because they are business model. they ensure
their drivers will get paid. if someone is calling tr san francisco, the driver who is accepting, knows that one way or another her or she is going to get paid. another thing i want to point out to you is in a business model our dispatching pyramid is in total part of our structure. we can't separate from the dispatching license. we provide transportation service from a-z. we invest our own money. there is never going to be enough taxis for all the time. you can't concentrate all the caps, -- cabs, all the medallions in the hands of
few. please keep in mind we are competing with thousands. >> john wailey. good afternoon, i'm an attorney here. the minimum dispatch service standards aren't fair because they favor the three largest and older. companies, yellow, lux or and desoto. 75 percent of the san francisco taxi business is street hals. only 25 percent is dispatch service. on the average each cab in san francisco will have 15 hals a day. according to the sfmta
data, the largest companies receive 80 percent of the dispatch service request because they have a brand and they have been in business for 60 years and have relationships where they provide vouchers to ensure service. the other san francisco taxi cab companies which hold about 50 percent of the taxicabs provide 20 percent of the dispatch service. these other taxicab companies cannot provide depleted dispatch service request each day because the business won't support it. in fact there is competition from lefts, side cars, the other ones you have heard about. that takes away the ability to get a dispatch service request. in addition, these san francisco taxi cab companies can't stop people from flagging down cards. we
urge the mta is implementing a centralized dispatch service called electronic taxi access. i'm told it's going to be about six months. at that point we'll have a level playing field. all of the companies will participate and we don't have to worry about favoring three companies against the rest. thank you. hansen kim. director of the total cab. the reason the major companies have built this is because it's invested in technology and services that other dispatch companies have not done. the three major companies have digital dispatch systems, with gps and closest vehicle goes to the order and subsidized vouchers and
promotion. the fact is we do a disservice to provide by name. the fact is dispatching if san francisco traditionally has been no financial incentive to create better service to the public. the taxi industry in san francisco is a leasing business. so if you basically have a shortage of taxi cabs which we had for many years you can lease out your cabs to drivers. there is no incentive to pick up the neighborhoods and transit calls and so forth. as we put the out more medallions and taxi cabs now it's essential to provide towards your drivers and invest in those services and companies that have invested in those technologies. the fact is we must create a high standard so every dispatch is substantive
and has lots of orders and whatever dispatch service their with, there are orders for them. the public is better served. the fact is, this is long over due. as a matter of fact, my personal opinion, i don't think it's aggressive enough. this must go forward as quickly as possible so we can make sure that ever dispatch company add hears to a standard of service so the taxi industry the competitive and reliable and we can compete. >> anyone else care to address the board? >> good afternoon, mark grub erg. i failed to speak earlier. i do have some concerns and i
understand the object of this. i support the concept of the idea of getting everybody on workable dispatch systems. green cab first of all i should say i'm very proud of the fact that we provide a disproportionate amount of dispatch. in the last two dispatch surveys the mta did of all the cab companies we came in first and second in respect of all the companies despite the fact that we are with the citywide service with somewhat less of volume of calls with the larger companies. yellow and luxor and desoto. we have a steeper hill to climb and we've climbed it. my concern is that a company like citywide dispatch which is doing, i
think a good job in providing service to the public, is nonetheless going to be heavily impacted by this because among the requirements are that there be a digital computerized system in place. it's going to be hard for them to meet that requirement especially on a short lease which i think is february 2014. reason being while we all have computer carts in our cab, that equipment difference from company to company. i don't think it would be possible for citywide to dispatch green cab for instance. i'm not worried about green cab because we can always find a home. >> thank you, anyone else care to address the board on this